COP17 Durban Climate Conference December 7

When Alex Stark, of adoptanegotiator.org, suggested to a (very) high level US official that their current stance at these talks would lead to a future that is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’ - devastating the majority of ecosystems and causing unprecedented upheaval to civilisation - his off the record response was to candidly admit that it is not at all clear whether current targets will be enough, but that the pledges made in Cancun were “as far as we could go.” Ouch.

Latest report from OneClimate's Jeff Allen on Week 2 Day 2: As the ministers arrive in Durban, will any of them inspire the others to rise above national self-interest?

When countries disagree over the wording of a potential agreement, they add alternative phrases in brackets - to be negotiated by the bureaucrats and politicians here. So the more there is to agree, the longer the text gets. Murray Worthy, a policy officer for the World Development Movement, takes a look at the latest text... it's getting longer:

We've reached that stage in these annual climate negotiations when the interpretations of what's going on lose their potency. The NGOs have terrific relations with the workhorse national negotiating teams but, once the ministers arive, the doors slam shut.

You could detect a hint of repetition, as distinct from narrative, in this morning's press briefing of the Climate Action Network which is the voice of the big global NGOs in Durban.

The most convincing pitch came from Samantha Smith who heads up WWF's Global Climate and Energy Initiative. She's unhappy with yesterday's mood which casts doubt on China's true intentions torwards Eureopan proposals for commitment to a legally binding agreement.


Samantha Smith also responded to overnight news that Brazil's parliament has approved the controversial Forest Code. "If this bill stands," she said, "it will affect the ability of other countries to tackle deforestation. We look to Brazil to take the lead."

Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation have been ejected from the conference after turning their back on Environment Minister Peter Kent as he delivered his opening address here in Durban. 

Perhaps I'm wrong about the NGOs not knowing what's happening during the ministerial stage. Meena Raman knows everything, although I sometimes wonder if her knowledge draws on intuition as much as sources - for someone of such experience, politicians must have a robotic predictability.

Wearing her Friends of the Earth Malaysia hat, Meena Raman spoke at the press briefing just concluded. Her lines are so familiar and yet so pertinent:


The facilitator of the Friends of the Earth briefing, Bobby Peek of the South African Groundwork NGO, put the same sentiments in a different but telling way: "we must remain firm behind the African position."

The strength of Meena Raman's case is that it was agreed by all concerned, even the US, at the Bali conference in 2007. Her anger is directed at the hypocrisy of the US in its forgetfulness and in dragging down the others.

What niggles me a little is this. If the Bali promises can be so lightly extinguished, why do the NGOs set so much store on a new legally binding agreement? Maybe I'm getting tired.

Today's US press briefing is coming up any moment. On recent form, Todd Stern won't say much by way of introduction but will allow a lot of questions.

Will his minder allow a black face to ask a question? It's about time.

Still waiting for Todd to arrive.

And I've noticed that the press briefing of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (the leading NGO umbrella group on climate change in Africa) has been scheduled to take place in one of the other media rooms at exactly the same time as this US briefing. That's creates a tough choice for an African journalist. I guess there won't be many here with Todd Stern.

The US Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, has just finished his briefing, still suffering from a slight cold. Turn down the aircon!

No questions from Africa but we did see an Indian journalist on his feet, so who knows what tomorrow may bring. Today's first question was a bit of a shocker:


Apparently this was framed in a press session with the Guatemalan delegation earlier today. Todd Stern said:


So is that 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 more deaths?

The irony is that, if just 100 deaths of US citizens could somehow be pinned unequivocally on climate change, then we would have a legally binding agreement the next day.

The rest of the session was doomed to banality. Mr Stern confirmed that the Green Climate Fund instrument submitted to the conference will stand unchanged but will have a covering brief attached. This is "less than two pages" and maybe "only 2-3 items are still being discussed."

I think we can safely presume that these items address whether the Fund's board will answer to the UN climate framework or to those more specialist financial institutions which offer greater comfort to the US. And there's the issue of private capital leverage.

The European Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, has just finished a press briefing in typically robust style.

But, oh dear, she confessed to some confusion about what the US delegation wants. I thought it was the Chinese who were supposed to be confusing everyone.

Ms Hedegaard was asked about differences on commitments and dates for a legally binding agreement:


Connie doesn't seem too happy with any suggestion that Europe should be regarded as equals with the US in climate negotiations:


(The inserted figures are mine) The European Commissioner also took exception to the inference that she should be more flexible on the demand to complete an agreement by 2015, to come into force at a later date.


I fear that the folks back home are already saying that.

I must apologise for a post on Monday which elevated Mr Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the office of his country's environment minister. The incumbent is of course Mr José Endundo Bononge.

In the internet age one's mistakes are punished horribly - they stare at you out of the search engine results for eternity.

Maybe one day Mr Mpanu Mpanu will find himself in the esteemed position. Then I can be hailed as a prophet. For now, he is the worthy Chair of the African Group of negotiators at the Durban climate talks.

Suitably chastised I can now report on the Africa Group press briefing.

It is fortunate that Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, Chair of the African Group of negotiators at the Durban climate talks is a calm and quietly spoken official. As we all know, and as he outlined in the press briefing recently concluded, his group of 54 countries are not hearing the things they came to this conference to hear.

Mpanu Mpanu singled out the European Union for his toughest words. The Africans see the EU as imposing conditions for championing a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, where in fact it has obligations to renew the Protocol under the Bali Action Plan (2007). As Mpanu Mpanu put it:


He went on to observe:


The African Group clearly feels it has justice on its side in demanding that the three big agenda items under discussion in Durban should be tackled in the correct order. First, the continuity of the Kyoto Protocol, second, the provision of real scaled-up finance for developing countries, and only then to start worrying about legally binding agreements.

Synchronised with this briefing, the African Group issued a press release retating their demands. There's no sign of compromise and we're almost down to the last 48 hours.

It's clear that the Brazilian delegaton has deemed it prudent to cancel its press briefing that was due to start about now.

Not too surprising, given that the Brazilian Senate last night approved revisions to the country's Forest Code, a vote that WWF says will "do away with long standing protections for the Amazon and other key forested areas."

The timing couldn't be worse as Brazil is one of the pivotal and normally most respected countries seeking a positive outcome to the Durban climate talks.

Campaigners are pinning their hopes now that Brazilian president Dilma Roussef will refuse to sign the bill into law.

I'm having one of those days. I'm quite wrong about Brazil. They did hold a press briefing but did so an hour earlier than scheduled. I'm trying to catch up on the recording now.

and I should have spelled the president's name "Rousseff".

In the press briefing, Dr Eduardo Assad, Brazil's climate change secretary, answered the inevitable question about the controversial forest code bill passed in the Brazilian Senate last night.

Actually he didn't answer the question - which referred to the opinion of Marina Silva, Brazil's former environment minsiter, that approval of the code would make it very difficult to meet the country's target for carbon dioxide emissions.

Assad made two points. First, he claimed that Brazil will achieve 60% of its pledges made after Copenhagen (2009) by 2012. Second, he said that the bill will not become law until it gets through the lower house of parliament and then the president herself.

A question via Twitter added evidence that the micro-blogosphere is one step ahead of our political rulers. The question alluded to rumours that Japan has proposed a new working group to replace the current Kyoto Protocol group within the UN process. Brazil's lead climate negotiator, Ambassador Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, was forced to admit that he knew nothing about this.

He did however offer his philosophy on the endgame of the climate talks:


Keep checking into our coverage and you'll find out.

I've had a quick look at the media briefing of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, a coalition of African NGOs giving voice to the people of the continent most affected by global warming.

It's interesting to compare the Alliance's position on the Durban talks with that of the formal African Group of negotiators, reported here earlier today. Both groups see betrayal on the part of developed countries in their joint amnesia for the Bali Action Plan, signed up under UN auspices at the 2007 climate conference.

As you'd expect, the NGOs express their frustration in more exotic language and PACJA has issued a strongly worded press release setting out its position.

As Augustine Njamushi, spokesman for PACJA, put it:


His PACJA colleague, Michele Maynard, said:

What no one asked is ....how close are we to the point when African countries will walk out and collapse the talks?

if you have any comments, please write to me at guides@oneworld.net

I don't know the full story behind this tweet by a Canadian Green MP but it sounds provocative. One of the big fights over the Green Climate Fund is whether it should accountable to the UN Climate Convention (ie.all countries) or to an international financial institution (with dodgy democratic credentials).

The head of the UN climate secretariat, Christiana Figueres, as optimistic as ever. Good luck to her.

OneClimate's Jeff Allen reports for US cable news on Day 3 of the second week from Durban, South Africa, and asks: What is making the African lion roar?

Yesterday's simple low-cost action by the Canadian Youth Delegation in the International Convention Centre must be the envy of all those well-heeled environmental groups desperately seeking attention at the Durban climate talks.

That photo of the six activists standing with their backs to the Canadian minister enjoys widespread global coverage this morning - and concentrated coverage in Canadian media.

This was no fluke. The CYD (as they call themselves) has been scoring publicity points from Day 1, last Monday, when they modelled the BituMensWear in protest at the Canadian tar sands oil programme. There will be more than a few NGO campaign managers wnating to know who is the creative mastermind at work here.

OneClimate's Jeffrey Allen did his best to find out in this interview recorded shortly after the incident. He's struggling a little to keep up with the brisk walking pace of the activists, presumably in a direction away from the Convention Centre following the cancellation of their accreditation - apparently on the orders of the Canadian officials.